OS X support that's the only thing i want. But i wonder if creamware still developing.
It's taking ages now
Creamware: Read My Lips
I would like to see the company like Waves, Sony, TC Electronic, Lexicon, Eventide to join the Scope PlugIns family.
It would also be great to have some audio engine intergrated with the software like Logic or Nuendo. Means, all audio recorded in Nuendo or Logic use the Triple Dat engine and Scope PlugIns can directly loaded within software (logic or Nuendo) and the STM series mixer is used throughout the software. Think like, for example, DAE audio driver in use in Logic Audio instead of ASIO or Direct IO and you've choice to choose..
It would also be great to have some audio engine intergrated with the software like Logic or Nuendo. Means, all audio recorded in Nuendo or Logic use the Triple Dat engine and Scope PlugIns can directly loaded within software (logic or Nuendo) and the STM series mixer is used throughout the software. Think like, for example, DAE audio driver in use in Logic Audio instead of ASIO or Direct IO and you've choice to choose..
What I like of Scope is exactly the opposite of what you say...I wouldn't change the routing window and the current phylosophy with anything. I love the fact that Scope is the "virtual hardware" of my studio, I can decide what audio-Midi software I can use with it...it can also be used as a live environment, latency free.On 2005-10-31 10:03, beerbr wrote:
I would like to see the company like Waves, Sony, TC Electronic, Lexicon, Eventide to join the Scope PlugIns family.
It would also be great to have some audio engine intergrated with the software like Logic or Nuendo. Means, all audio recorded in Nuendo or Logic use the Triple Dat engine and Scope PlugIns can directly loaded within software (logic or Nuendo) and the STM series mixer is used throughout the software. Think like, for example, DAE audio driver in use in Logic Audio instead of ASIO or Direct IO and you've choice to choose..
Why should everything be wrapped, embedded, included, mixed, maybe in that cluttered and bad looking Cubase mixer...no no. thanks! I love my Scope cables, I have sometimes audio tracks that go to 3 different modulars, all the wicked routings are possible with an ease impossible in other softwares...
If I need to use Waves or NI (I don't) I load them where they can be loaded, Scope stuff i want it in Scope environment, much easier, comfortable snd....beautiful!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: alfonso on 2005-10-31 10:58 ]</font>
exactly, Alfonso - it's the most tiny, yet most powerful virtual studio
I hate sequencers - in SFP I can record with VDAT
someone else loves them - fine, he (or she) can use whatever applies via ASIO
you prefer ProTools - ok, send the stuff via Adat
SFP IS perfect, up to the degree that's achievable under economic constraints.
there's no need at all to develope obscure features ...which will not happen anyway
on this board there are tons of configuration examples where people introduce great performing setups, at least with the 'modern' generation of Scope cards
the old stuff like the Pulsar One (which I have) may be somewhat demanding regarding the choice of chipsets, but I have no reason at all to complain.
My system is worth every Euro I put into it - and I have devices for > than 2K.
Considering what it can do it's still a true bargain
you can safely burry the idea that the software for this generation of cards will be radically changed - noone will do it for fun because it's awefully expensive - and noone will do for reasons because it's complete nonsense.
If one isn't able to produce on this system, then he or she won't make it on any system.
Powerful gear doesn't automatically turn you into a talented musician or producer...
the constant request of those 'famous names' just shows a degree of uncertainity with one's own results. It doesn't sound better because it's labeled differently - for the audience
it will only for the so-called (or self declared) experts - call it 'Pride And Prejudice' if you like
Fortunately the latter group is only marginally involved when it comes to decisions about success or failure
cheers, Tom
I don't exclude myself from the last couple of paragraphs - some self irony applies
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-10-31 12:14 ]</font>
I hate sequencers - in SFP I can record with VDAT
someone else loves them - fine, he (or she) can use whatever applies via ASIO
you prefer ProTools - ok, send the stuff via Adat
SFP IS perfect, up to the degree that's achievable under economic constraints.
there's no need at all to develope obscure features ...which will not happen anyway
on this board there are tons of configuration examples where people introduce great performing setups, at least with the 'modern' generation of Scope cards
the old stuff like the Pulsar One (which I have) may be somewhat demanding regarding the choice of chipsets, but I have no reason at all to complain.
My system is worth every Euro I put into it - and I have devices for > than 2K.
Considering what it can do it's still a true bargain
you can safely burry the idea that the software for this generation of cards will be radically changed - noone will do it for fun because it's awefully expensive - and noone will do for reasons because it's complete nonsense.
If one isn't able to produce on this system, then he or she won't make it on any system.
Powerful gear doesn't automatically turn you into a talented musician or producer...
the constant request of those 'famous names' just shows a degree of uncertainity with one's own results. It doesn't sound better because it's labeled differently - for the audience
it will only for the so-called (or self declared) experts - call it 'Pride And Prejudice' if you like
Fortunately the latter group is only marginally involved when it comes to decisions about success or failure
cheers, Tom
I don't exclude myself from the last couple of paragraphs - some self irony applies
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-10-31 12:14 ]</font>
-
cannonball
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: italia
hi
some new high end emulation ala
transient designer,
a software update
for works smoothly in 96khz 24bit
(the cards is sell to support this rate
and 88.2 as well) fix the phase isssue
with some devices,a vst host or integration and xtc thing,new dsp for developper
a mixer inspired to the analog console
a stereo recording device
stop the saga synths please
anyway improve the platform
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cannonball on 2005-11-01 01:27 ]</font>
some new high end emulation ala
transient designer,
a software update
for works smoothly in 96khz 24bit
(the cards is sell to support this rate
and 88.2 as well) fix the phase isssue
with some devices,a vst host or integration and xtc thing,new dsp for developper
a mixer inspired to the analog console
a stereo recording device
stop the saga synths please
anyway improve the platform
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cannonball on 2005-11-01 01:27 ]</font>
Please, leave the freedom of choice:
for the people that loves Scope Fusion Package as it is I hope for a better and bugless similar enviroment, possibly more integrated (interface and graphic engine) with WinXP or OSX, and, for the people that uses Cakawalk, Cubase, Nuendo, Logic, etc. I hope a really better integration with VST/i, (or other standard format) like UAD or PoCo. Obviously, the SFP enviroment is irreplaceable and amazing because routing and tweaking possibility
My propose to Creamware is not "or" "or"... is "and" and"
I think that problem in XTC use is mainly a interface problem and a "out of standard" windows use: windows and presets disappearing, low compatibility, several bugs (we cannot enter numerical values with keyboard!!!!!
), etc.
for the people that loves Scope Fusion Package as it is I hope for a better and bugless similar enviroment, possibly more integrated (interface and graphic engine) with WinXP or OSX, and, for the people that uses Cakawalk, Cubase, Nuendo, Logic, etc. I hope a really better integration with VST/i, (or other standard format) like UAD or PoCo. Obviously, the SFP enviroment is irreplaceable and amazing because routing and tweaking possibility
My propose to Creamware is not "or" "or"... is "and" and"
I think that problem in XTC use is mainly a interface problem and a "out of standard" windows use: windows and presets disappearing, low compatibility, several bugs (we cannot enter numerical values with keyboard!!!!!
), etc.Thanks Eminardi. THAT is the voice of reason.On 2005-11-01 02:14, erminardi wrote:
Please, leave the freedom of choice:
for the people that loves Scope Fusion Package as it is I hope for a better and bugless similar enviroment, possibly more integrated (interface and graphic engine) with WinXP or OSX, and, for the people that uses Cakawalk, Cubase, Nuendo, Logic, etc. I hope a really better integration with VST/i, (or other standard format) like UAD or PoCo. .../...
My propose to Creamware is not "or" "or"... is "and" and"
I think that problem in XTC use is mainly a interface problem and a "out of standard" windows use: windows and presets disappearing, low compatibility, several bugs (we cannot enter numerical values with keyboard!!!!!
Unfortunately,I really feel everyone is utterly optimistic with this Creamware wishes thing... Are they even still developing something Scope wise ? The last significant release was 3.1... a long while ago.
I do not think that anyone is optimistic in this context at all... the pieces of the puzzle do not point into this direction
for all those who never had the fun of writing a user interface in a high level computer language - make up your minds, read some books and complete the 'hello world example' on your own and not by copy/pasting it from the example files...
then you may start thinking about how you'd like to represent structures and dataflow that make a virtual studio and then go find some graphical objects to represent your ideas...
which means you move some pixels on the screen and an invisible data table gets updated, do you expect it magically does this on it's own ?
then ask someone who has the SDK about the complexity of (say) a simple mixer...
The SDK is the result of reasonings like the ones mentioned above.
It's at least 10 times less complex than the underlying facts.
And now you smart *ss come and rewrite that sh*t for an operating system who's bugs are measured in thousands (if you focus on the important ones only) within a couple of months
it is bare nonsense to ask a company to do that for the convenience of a few but-me- cannot-complete-it-because-of-s
it will never be bug free because the OS isn't and because people make faults.
Most complaints are a diffuse 'but it could improve...' moaning, no hard facts that kill the job or make it impossible.
There are certainly millions of stories from analog studios about production 'accidents' - imho things have never been as reliable (and affordable !) as today
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-11-01 05:38 ]</font>
well, to call this reasonable is close to mental collapse....I hope for a better and bugless similar enviroment, possibly more integrated (interface and graphic engine) with WinXP or OSX...
for all those who never had the fun of writing a user interface in a high level computer language - make up your minds, read some books and complete the 'hello world example' on your own and not by copy/pasting it from the example files...
then you may start thinking about how you'd like to represent structures and dataflow that make a virtual studio and then go find some graphical objects to represent your ideas...
which means you move some pixels on the screen and an invisible data table gets updated, do you expect it magically does this on it's own ?
then ask someone who has the SDK about the complexity of (say) a simple mixer...
The SDK is the result of reasonings like the ones mentioned above.
It's at least 10 times less complex than the underlying facts.
And now you smart *ss come and rewrite that sh*t for an operating system who's bugs are measured in thousands (if you focus on the important ones only) within a couple of months
it is bare nonsense to ask a company to do that for the convenience of a few but-me- cannot-complete-it-because-of-s
it will never be bug free because the OS isn't and because people make faults.
Most complaints are a diffuse 'but it could improve...' moaning, no hard facts that kill the job or make it impossible.
There are certainly millions of stories from analog studios about production 'accidents' - imho things have never been as reliable (and affordable !) as today
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-11-01 05:38 ]</font>
-
cannonball
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: italia
well, if you can enter the values by keyboard in SFP mode, but not in XTC mode, then my personal guess is that the host application has the focus and is not passing the keyboard event in a way that it reaches the 'non-standard' (as you correctly call it) window of the XTC device.
On the other hand the library CWA uses isn't that exotic - afaik EnergyXT also uses it and AOL made their browser cross-platform compatible by it.
You (and me either) don't know if it's the OS, the host app or CWA's GUI that 'mistreats' the keyboard event - but it's fundamental enough to let you think twice (or even four times) before you start to even consider an edit/recompile of such a complex system.
I made a similiar experience with one of my own applications, which suddenly started to get interupted with an error message.
It turned out that whenever M$-Office was active, it captured the 'shift-key' and generated a new type of whatever-event, which it promptly spread system wide.
That event was of course unknown to the old application and messed it's event handler.
And it IS definetely Office as no other app is capable to do the same...
No, I didn't edit each position that dealt with keyboard events - I told them to quit Office instead
you see, things can be quiet complex when it comes to details... and mind you: my app runs on a Mac...
Cannonball, I completely second that idea
cheers, Tom
On the other hand the library CWA uses isn't that exotic - afaik EnergyXT also uses it and AOL made their browser cross-platform compatible by it.
You (and me either) don't know if it's the OS, the host app or CWA's GUI that 'mistreats' the keyboard event - but it's fundamental enough to let you think twice (or even four times) before you start to even consider an edit/recompile of such a complex system.
I made a similiar experience with one of my own applications, which suddenly started to get interupted with an error message.
It turned out that whenever M$-Office was active, it captured the 'shift-key' and generated a new type of whatever-event, which it promptly spread system wide.
That event was of course unknown to the old application and messed it's event handler.
And it IS definetely Office as no other app is capable to do the same...
No, I didn't edit each position that dealt with keyboard events - I told them to quit Office instead
you see, things can be quiet complex when it comes to details... and mind you: my app runs on a Mac...
Cannonball, I completely second that idea
cheers, Tom
Don't get it wrong in my point of view.. I already love Scope system & software as it is now. But my point of view is to make it more powerful yet more easy to use. (if possible).. Please don't say it is not making sense to do. If one day this thing can be successful made, then I believe it will be time for Scope system in Real professional studio and can compare with more professional system like Protools HD. The scope system has very good potential to be best platform because of its realtime & flexible & great sound which can't find in another system except Protools HD platform. (I mean TDM not LE).
But I believe the Protools HD system is more widely used over the professional studio is just because of it is very easy to use.
Come on, be accepted that modern music production can't finish everything ONLY in scope software without any sequencer software. And it's very very hard to develop new sequencer software to be new standard of the world. So that's why I give the example of DAE (Digidesign Audio Engine) that used in Logic Audio Platinum. (Please DON'T GUESSING if never use them) This way people can arrange, record and MIX at the same time, same file loaded and it's still very flexible to route any input to any output and can apply any effect to everything from every input to every output.., all in Real Time.. too. That's why people love to use VDAT in scope because the input can be routed to input of VDAT and can monitor to scope mixer and apply any effect in real time. It's time saver and session saver that you don't have to headache for monitor things.. If you like the sound when it records.. that's the way the sound goes later on..
My point of view is the Scope system can be the standard of the real professional studio the can REPLACE the Protools HD system. What creamware need is to have STANDARD plugins that most people understand and know and get used to it. (have to be in Scope plugins because realtime issue.. Not to Mention ASIO at all) and STANDARD MIDI sequencer and AUDIO sequencer like Logic Audio Platinum. Digidesign will not develop DAE that can used to replace audio engine in Logic or Digital Performer if it is not good.. But anyway, the old classic SFP software is still the same.., so why worry for added function?
Sorry for long post and might hard to understand what my vision is. I declare I really in love with Scope (especially for sound) and I just want to see its good future. May be it's all about marketing and vision that Digidesign protools HD win on Scope platform now. I'm sure they don't win creamware by system or sound..
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beerbr on 2005-11-01 11:02 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beerbr on 2005-11-01 11:07 ]</font>
But I believe the Protools HD system is more widely used over the professional studio is just because of it is very easy to use.
Come on, be accepted that modern music production can't finish everything ONLY in scope software without any sequencer software. And it's very very hard to develop new sequencer software to be new standard of the world. So that's why I give the example of DAE (Digidesign Audio Engine) that used in Logic Audio Platinum. (Please DON'T GUESSING if never use them) This way people can arrange, record and MIX at the same time, same file loaded and it's still very flexible to route any input to any output and can apply any effect to everything from every input to every output.., all in Real Time.. too. That's why people love to use VDAT in scope because the input can be routed to input of VDAT and can monitor to scope mixer and apply any effect in real time. It's time saver and session saver that you don't have to headache for monitor things.. If you like the sound when it records.. that's the way the sound goes later on..
My point of view is the Scope system can be the standard of the real professional studio the can REPLACE the Protools HD system. What creamware need is to have STANDARD plugins that most people understand and know and get used to it. (have to be in Scope plugins because realtime issue.. Not to Mention ASIO at all) and STANDARD MIDI sequencer and AUDIO sequencer like Logic Audio Platinum. Digidesign will not develop DAE that can used to replace audio engine in Logic or Digital Performer if it is not good.. But anyway, the old classic SFP software is still the same.., so why worry for added function?
Sorry for long post and might hard to understand what my vision is. I declare I really in love with Scope (especially for sound) and I just want to see its good future. May be it's all about marketing and vision that Digidesign protools HD win on Scope platform now. I'm sure they don't win creamware by system or sound..
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beerbr on 2005-11-01 11:02 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beerbr on 2005-11-01 11:07 ]</font>
scope doesn't come with an integrated control surface or 24/7 tech support or a $40,000 price tag. this will ALWAYS keep it from replacing pt hd.
it IS professional studio worthy NOW.
if it can be improved, great!!! the present setup is MORE than sufficient for REAL work, done by REAL engineers. none of it's current limitations are keeping it from being used by those who have the skills and the money to outfit a studio properly. in fact, i'd say that scope is MORE flexible than hd right now, and a much better value. what do i know, though? i only sell gear to michael jackson, the eagles, allan holdsworth, david lindley, disney, the crystal cathedral, hollywood landmark studios, poison, all kinds of local, signed acts, etc, etc.... i've seen more gear than most will see in a lifetime. there is every reason to update and improve scope, we always like more and more convienient. there is also NO competing product. none. one DOES have to set up one's computer properly and learn signal flow and other pain-in-the-butt tasks, however.
something like mackie control implementation will help a lot in making scope more "pro" ready. i'm not pushing for the 24 hr tech support, though. that will gaurantee the $40,000 price tag and i'd rather keep it "semi-pro" and available to home users.
it IS professional studio worthy NOW.
if it can be improved, great!!! the present setup is MORE than sufficient for REAL work, done by REAL engineers. none of it's current limitations are keeping it from being used by those who have the skills and the money to outfit a studio properly. in fact, i'd say that scope is MORE flexible than hd right now, and a much better value. what do i know, though? i only sell gear to michael jackson, the eagles, allan holdsworth, david lindley, disney, the crystal cathedral, hollywood landmark studios, poison, all kinds of local, signed acts, etc, etc.... i've seen more gear than most will see in a lifetime. there is every reason to update and improve scope, we always like more and more convienient. there is also NO competing product. none. one DOES have to set up one's computer properly and learn signal flow and other pain-in-the-butt tasks, however.
something like mackie control implementation will help a lot in making scope more "pro" ready. i'm not pushing for the 24 hr tech support, though. that will gaurantee the $40,000 price tag and i'd rather keep it "semi-pro" and available to home users.
-
Crickstone
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:00 pm
- Location: Canada
I'm glad to hear that my humble opinions gathered in year and one half researching led me to Creamware. Knowing exactly how things can and should sound but having limited funds and not wanting to compromise; all the effort in learning about Scope and now how to use it and make music that I only dreamed about a year ago, I'm glad to hear that I made the right decision especially hearing the opinions of our esteemed colleague above. I find it amazing that more people haven't come to the same conclusions. The more I learn and the more I master the more amazed I am that this system sits in two computers in my basement studio.
I agreed that Scope has NO competing product for its powerful & sound.. yes.
If your work have to involve many studios and have to transfer in/out of your studio everyday then you'll know what the STANDARD is important. But if you only work in your own studio then it is Best already with scope. I know, they have the good way to work out for this, but it's just not that convenience, especially mixing engineer that want to transfer mix to edit later in another studio..
I love to mix in my scope better than Protools HD.. Yes., scope is warmer and more easy to connect with outboard gear via A16 Ultra. But if I want to transfer mix to another studio and can adjust balance later in another studio? I have to re-record the mix line by line, effect by effect (though, can record 8-10 tracks at once by powerful scope routing). But believe me it's not that convenience..
This is just different point of idea.. don't mean to offense anything.. May be I just look different angle.
If your work have to involve many studios and have to transfer in/out of your studio everyday then you'll know what the STANDARD is important. But if you only work in your own studio then it is Best already with scope. I know, they have the good way to work out for this, but it's just not that convenience, especially mixing engineer that want to transfer mix to edit later in another studio..
I love to mix in my scope better than Protools HD.. Yes., scope is warmer and more easy to connect with outboard gear via A16 Ultra. But if I want to transfer mix to another studio and can adjust balance later in another studio? I have to re-record the mix line by line, effect by effect (though, can record 8-10 tracks at once by powerful scope routing). But believe me it's not that convenience..
This is just different point of idea.. don't mean to offense anything.. May be I just look different angle.