Hi,
Apparently this was designed (coded?) by Warp69 who did the creamware 'verbs. Has anyone compared the two? I can't because I currently don't have a working syncrosoft dongle.
I liked the creaware version but didn't buy it because I usually have quite a few synths in my projects and so never seemed to have the DSP resources for it. In fact I only seemed to be able to use it when it was the only device in the project and I was loath to turn my card into a reverb unit. So I am now wondering whether CSR sounds similar enough to justify the purchase (and place the load on my pc's back rather than the card's).
t.i.a.
Pierre
CSR Classik Studio Reverb vs P100/A100
since this was unavoidable - ok, I'm also in for the hall algo 
no pressure tho - but wouldn't it be nice to have a completed package ? just to proove it could be done ? if time allows, of course...
Anyway, once again my big 'thank you' for these amazing effects.
I'm not too shy to use the my PX4's internal fx or the Yamaha SPX90, but Ambient, Plate and Chorus Delay are often just right to make... YEAH, THAT sound
Keep the source trustworthy and polish it or put it into a beautiful acoustic context - classy in their own
cheers, Tom
no pressure tho - but wouldn't it be nice to have a completed package ? just to proove it could be done ? if time allows, of course...
Anyway, once again my big 'thank you' for these amazing effects.
I'm not too shy to use the my PX4's internal fx or the Yamaha SPX90, but Ambient, Plate and Chorus Delay are often just right to make... YEAH, THAT sound
Keep the source trustworthy and polish it or put it into a beautiful acoustic context - classy in their own
cheers, Tom
Hey,
First of all - Im still visiting PlanetZ several times each week.
I don't think there's any chance for a crossgrade - but I'll ask IK Multimedia.
I do all my development with Scope DP, but unfortunately, even if you have optimized/locked your device - it still posible to look at the algorithm inside the device (with the right tool). Thats the reason I wont release any new devices even though alot of algorithms are finished.
Sorry for the above.
Kind regards
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Warp69 on 2006-04-08 03:13 ]</font>
First of all - Im still visiting PlanetZ several times each week.
I don't think there's any chance for a crossgrade - but I'll ask IK Multimedia.
I do all my development with Scope DP, but unfortunately, even if you have optimized/locked your device - it still posible to look at the algorithm inside the device (with the right tool). Thats the reason I wont release any new devices even though alot of algorithms are finished.
Sorry for the above.
Kind regards
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Warp69 on 2006-04-08 03:13 ]</font>
Warp69,
I finally managed to access the IK key server so I'll be comparing the two tonight. Getting the key has proved more than passingly irritating and even messed up my drivers - I had to switch projects to my failsafe setup and then back to my regular setup to get cubase to load again. Not an ideal way to attract business. Ah well.
I'm sorry to hear that you aren't going to proceeding with the hall algo on scope. It's actually the one I was the most interested in (although the more time I spend with plate the more I like it).
rgds
Pierre
I finally managed to access the IK key server so I'll be comparing the two tonight. Getting the key has proved more than passingly irritating and even messed up my drivers - I had to switch projects to my failsafe setup and then back to my regular setup to get cubase to load again. Not an ideal way to attract business. Ah well.
I'm sorry to hear that you aren't going to proceeding with the hall algo on scope. It's actually the one I was the most interested in (although the more time I spend with plate the more I like it).
rgds
Pierre
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
me myself has never bought the algos, i have to admit. i simply never had the use of them.
anyways, for your own sake, blaming scope for being an easy platform to crack is an easy way out. My guess is not enough ppl bought the device, which is fair enough.
in the beginning, Paradox "cracked" a lot of scope devs (with mixed luck, hence the "". Oxygen (now part of H2O, one of the biggest Audio software crackers) had their try. With the "ingo raven" plugin enabler (this is not even directed at the former employee ingo, its just the name of the crack from my part) resulted in mostly unusable plugins.
So here we have an approximatly 8 year old platform still waiting to be cracked.
How can easy access be an excuse?
as for "proof", my bet is that everything you ever do for IK Multi will be pirated long before your scope devs are.
Good luck anyways, and BIG thanks for your contribution!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: piddi on 2006-04-11 19:23 ]</font>
anyways, for your own sake, blaming scope for being an easy platform to crack is an easy way out. My guess is not enough ppl bought the device, which is fair enough.
in the beginning, Paradox "cracked" a lot of scope devs (with mixed luck, hence the "". Oxygen (now part of H2O, one of the biggest Audio software crackers) had their try. With the "ingo raven" plugin enabler (this is not even directed at the former employee ingo, its just the name of the crack from my part) resulted in mostly unusable plugins.
So here we have an approximatly 8 year old platform still waiting to be cracked.
How can easy access be an excuse?
as for "proof", my bet is that everything you ever do for IK Multi will be pirated long before your scope devs are.
Good luck anyways, and BIG thanks for your contribution!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: piddi on 2006-04-11 19:23 ]</font>
it's not about pirating devices - it's about spreading the receipe how to build your own...
Imho it's a reasonable statement because the sequence of modules (used in a device) tells a lot about the processing - and much more than a piece of disassembled X86 code anyway.
It's not unlikely that respective labels are left in the output or the building blocks can otherwise be identified.
cheers, Tom
Imho it's a reasonable statement because the sequence of modules (used in a device) tells a lot about the processing - and much more than a piece of disassembled X86 code anyway.
It's not unlikely that respective labels are left in the output or the building blocks can otherwise be identified.
cheers, Tom
Hi,
Hmm, this sound strange to me, because if we look at the platform history (which is rather long now), ie there have never been a clone of Sonic timeworks plugins (which is one of the first plugin developer) neither of SATURN, which might need to be "updated" and neither of his plugins.
I rather think it's a mixture for:
- potential risk,
- not enought customer (there where questionnable issues with XTC compatibility initially, which might have prevented XTC user to buy this plugin)
- technical (PCI limitation and CPU load incurred).
Anyway, it's rather sad as Warp69 contribution brought a lot of value to the platform.
Cheers
Hmm, this sound strange to me, because if we look at the platform history (which is rather long now), ie there have never been a clone of Sonic timeworks plugins (which is one of the first plugin developer) neither of SATURN, which might need to be "updated" and neither of his plugins.
I rather think it's a mixture for:
- potential risk,
- not enought customer (there where questionnable issues with XTC compatibility initially, which might have prevented XTC user to buy this plugin)
- technical (PCI limitation and CPU load incurred).
Anyway, it's rather sad as Warp69 contribution brought a lot of value to the platform.
Cheers
I don't think Warp would have a problem to say 'sorry guys, I'm paid by IK and they want it exclusively...'On 2006-04-08 03:12, Warp69 wrote:
...I do all my development with Scope DP, but unfortunately, ... - it still posible to look at the algorithm inside the device (with the right tool). ...
At least he's been the first one who wasn't too shy to actually publish his sales figures.
With the more or less uncontrolled spread of DP fiddling with the system was to be expected anyway - that's the difference between a toy and a tool
From my own experience I can tell you I once took heavy advantage of undocumented system calls in a dev toolkit, which gave my programs some nice extra capabilities - things like that aren't unusual at all.
cheers, Tom
well, you didn't quite get the point yet
in the native world it is simple to remove (for example) the check that it's a valid copy that runs.
Let's assume there's a dialog #13231 which tells the serial is wrong (msg #122) and then quits the app.
You look up the first number (which will - statistically - only appear a couple of times), then look for a register load and compare instruction with #122 near it.
Most likely there will be a branch/jump instruction followed the 'exit call' close to it.
Just set the jump offset to an alternate (hopefully valid) location and the program won't bother you anymore with 'invalid number', 'copy expired' and similiar stuff
It's an admittedly simple example (they are not THAT stupid today), but years ago it was a rather common strategy - and no secret to anyone who cares.
All developement systems insert labels for debugging in the executable, so the program can tell 'I crashed in the 'fileOpen' call (for example) which are often left even in the final release.
Scope SDK is most likely no exception, but unfortunately the 'labels' of the modules represent classical math and signal processing names.
Look inside your sfp/app/dsp folder and you know what I mean.
If you get the plugin to a stage where the 'messed characters' are sorted and you see those labels again, the sequence of labels is an open math book about how the processing runs.
That's what Warp means with 'you can look at the algorithm inside'
For example I have no idea how a Lexicon works and would have no chance to program it on my own.
Warp on the other hand has spent a lot of time analysing it and develope a model.
With the afforementioned list of labels I would have 90% of the blueprint to make my own, in my preferred environment - and I couldn't even be sued to 'have copied' something...
In fact the traditional developers for SFP are extremely fair among each other, but that is of few concerns for others who enter the scene with completely different motivations.
Mehdi (SpaceF) has been contacted by Roland (as he wrote himself) to develope for them.
Obviously they watch this small but exquisite market with interest
You can bet that ALL (in one or the other way) competing companies now DO have their SFP toolkit - which they most likely will use in the afforementioned way.
The word is business, not fairness.
imho whatever is signed on CWA's non-disclosure-agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on - as you've said, there IS always a way
cheers, Tom
in the native world it is simple to remove (for example) the check that it's a valid copy that runs.
Let's assume there's a dialog #13231 which tells the serial is wrong (msg #122) and then quits the app.
You look up the first number (which will - statistically - only appear a couple of times), then look for a register load and compare instruction with #122 near it.
Most likely there will be a branch/jump instruction followed the 'exit call' close to it.
Just set the jump offset to an alternate (hopefully valid) location and the program won't bother you anymore with 'invalid number', 'copy expired' and similiar stuff
It's an admittedly simple example (they are not THAT stupid today), but years ago it was a rather common strategy - and no secret to anyone who cares.
All developement systems insert labels for debugging in the executable, so the program can tell 'I crashed in the 'fileOpen' call (for example) which are often left even in the final release.
Scope SDK is most likely no exception, but unfortunately the 'labels' of the modules represent classical math and signal processing names.
Look inside your sfp/app/dsp folder and you know what I mean.
If you get the plugin to a stage where the 'messed characters' are sorted and you see those labels again, the sequence of labels is an open math book about how the processing runs.
That's what Warp means with 'you can look at the algorithm inside'
For example I have no idea how a Lexicon works and would have no chance to program it on my own.
Warp on the other hand has spent a lot of time analysing it and develope a model.
With the afforementioned list of labels I would have 90% of the blueprint to make my own, in my preferred environment - and I couldn't even be sued to 'have copied' something...
In fact the traditional developers for SFP are extremely fair among each other, but that is of few concerns for others who enter the scene with completely different motivations.
Mehdi (SpaceF) has been contacted by Roland (as he wrote himself) to develope for them.
Obviously they watch this small but exquisite market with interest
You can bet that ALL (in one or the other way) competing companies now DO have their SFP toolkit - which they most likely will use in the afforementioned way.
The word is business, not fairness.
imho whatever is signed on CWA's non-disclosure-agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on - as you've said, there IS always a way
cheers, Tom
well .. we don't want to appear as whinersOn 2006-04-12 02:28, astroman wrote:
At least he's been the first one who wasn't too shy to actually publish his sales figures.
If I'd tell you my number of sales you'd be shocked .. and it wouldn't change anything imho.
In trust of that I still just put a name onto some devices as "copy protection" instead of using cw's more costly one. But copy protection or reverse engineering was not, what warp69 was talking about.On 2006-04-12 06:07, MD69 wrote:
but the past have proven that there is a fair behaviour on this platform to my opinion.
best
Wolfgang
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: wolf on 2006-04-12 11:24 ]</font>
I spent hours and hours with the CSR and the STW 'verbs last night and I think I did my head/ears in. Will need a few days of totally dry musical twiddling to recuperate 
My overall view is that the scope plugs sound better. I know they're the same algos and I am very conscious of the possibility of some sort of selection bias, but whatever I did I could not get CSR > STW. Often I liked them both equally and I did miss a hall-type algorithm on the scope side, but, for the most part, the STW verb always had a little extra in the tank. The A100 and P100 seem more three-dimensional, more lively, less ringy and less hissy (y'know, that white noise wash that cheap(er) verbs seem to get) than Room and Plate.
I hope that it didn't make a difference to my evaluations but I really don't like the CSR interface. There is loads of wasted space but still lots of panel switching, with only a small number of parameters in each section. I've never been a big fan of the hardware paradigm for plugin GUIs generally but why IK felt the need to model one of the worst examples of hardware interfaces escapes me. The STW plugs also suffer from this a bit, although not nearly as badly and at least they use graphical EQ displays and signal flow diagrams. Both could take a leaf out of the artsacoustic reverb's book, though. CSR also has a really lousy preset handling system.
I then compared the STW plugs with some of my better lexi impulses and again I liked them just a little better. I'd doubt whether I'll ever get the opportunity but I wouldn't mind running the stw plugs up against a pcm91 just to see how they really stack up.
I've always liked the P100, but I seem to be liking A100 more and more as well. I will test some more over the next few days, but I have got a feeling that I'm buying P100 next paycheck and A100 the next one after that, DSP resources be damned. It's a lot cheaper than buying a decent reverb unit
Excellent work all around warp69...
My overall view is that the scope plugs sound better. I know they're the same algos and I am very conscious of the possibility of some sort of selection bias, but whatever I did I could not get CSR > STW. Often I liked them both equally and I did miss a hall-type algorithm on the scope side, but, for the most part, the STW verb always had a little extra in the tank. The A100 and P100 seem more three-dimensional, more lively, less ringy and less hissy (y'know, that white noise wash that cheap(er) verbs seem to get) than Room and Plate.
I hope that it didn't make a difference to my evaluations but I really don't like the CSR interface. There is loads of wasted space but still lots of panel switching, with only a small number of parameters in each section. I've never been a big fan of the hardware paradigm for plugin GUIs generally but why IK felt the need to model one of the worst examples of hardware interfaces escapes me. The STW plugs also suffer from this a bit, although not nearly as badly and at least they use graphical EQ displays and signal flow diagrams. Both could take a leaf out of the artsacoustic reverb's book, though. CSR also has a really lousy preset handling system.
I then compared the STW plugs with some of my better lexi impulses and again I liked them just a little better. I'd doubt whether I'll ever get the opportunity but I wouldn't mind running the stw plugs up against a pcm91 just to see how they really stack up.
I've always liked the P100, but I seem to be liking A100 more and more as well. I will test some more over the next few days, but I have got a feeling that I'm buying P100 next paycheck and A100 the next one after that, DSP resources be damned. It's a lot cheaper than buying a decent reverb unit
Excellent work all around warp69...