future of scope?

organix · Post by **organix** » Tue May 23, 2006 6:03 am

Hello,

maybe, this topic was discussed often and with much more deeper search, I could find some answers. But, it concerns to me not only in answers, but simply keep the discussion alive.

What about the future of the Creamware Scope Platform, SFP.

Since the version 3.1, there were no real updates of the SFP Software and Hardware. Only modifications of the product names and packages. It seems that Creamware only concentrates his development on synthesizer modules, likes the ASB series.

No better Scope drivers, no improvements in GUI or functionality, no improvements of currents devices, no really steps forward.

One looks already envious on various developments at UAD or PowerCore.

The PC future will bring us 64Bit Operating Systems, Windows-Vista with maybe a new driver model and even improvements in bus and cpu technologies.
And what about the new era of Intel Macs and OSX?

Will the Scope Hard- and Software ready for this future?

Will the SFP Software become a redesign of the GUI, maybe adapted to the look of Windows-Vista or Mac-OSX?
Or some new intuitive components for controlling devices.

And what about new better devices for mix- and mastering, like for Vocal processing for example.

Native AU/VST devices will become better in latency, better in sound and really better in functionality. Maybe in a few years there will be no reason to use SFP, because native plugins will better with the same latency.

It seems to me, that as some of the core developers went to Wizoo some years ago, the SFP development stops.

Ok, we got some really good sounding synthesizer emulations or a guitar amplifier (Dynatube), but many people uses SFP for mixing and mastering and not only as a softsynth.

Sorry, at the current state with a look back to the past 4 years, I see no development on Scope Fusion Platform.

If I would be a new user with the decision to buy a Creamware DSP card or not, I would say no. It's better to invest money to a product that is continually developed.
Scope Fusion Platform don't seems to be continually developed, it's more and more end of live.

The most improvement regarding SFP was made by building up some better looking websites.

I hope, that Creamware will change their direction of development more back to Scope.

-
Markus

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Tue May 23, 2006 6:18 am

"It's better to invest money to a product that is continually developed.
Scope Fusion Platform don't seems to be continually developed, it's more and more end of live. "

errr.... lats couple of months has seen the release of Dynatube, SBC, Digital BX, and shitloads of devs http://www.digitalaudiosoft.com

The PLATFORM isnt being focused on right now, thats true, but for plugins its far from dead.

bear in mind tho that it is still working, allthough ofcourse id like to see OSX support and 64bit support as well.

organix · Post by **organix** » Tue May 23, 2006 7:40 am

On 2006-05-23 07:18, piddi wrote:
errr.... lats couple of months has seen the release of Dynatube, SBC, Digital BX, and shitloads of devs http://www.digitalaudiosoft.com

I've notices some the new devices. Digital BX is really cool, but it's not developed by Creamware.
I don't want to speak about 3rd party device development. Without them, maybe the Scope Platform would be already dead.

More, I want to speak about Scope itself and the Creamware development.

The current Scope Software is old and looks old. It was developed for a past generation of Computers and it lacks on support for the upcoming generation.

Instead of developing more and more synthesizers and new devices, they should concentrate their development on Scope core elements and maybe a redesign and improvement of current devices.

To keep up-to-date the Scope Fusion Platform itself is also necessary for all the 3rd party developers.

It was not my intention to say that all is bad, no. I want to discuss the future of Scope.

Do you think, that the future of scope is only depending on 3rd party device and module developers?

Do you think, there is a future of scope by selling further the old cards and the old sfp software?

Check out some of the competitors, like UAD or Tc's Powercore. Look what nice devices, software, stylish guis and cards they regulary release. They do developing and maintain their systems, they don't sleep on their good development in the past.

-
Markus

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Tue May 23, 2006 8:02 am

Yo

This topic has been beaten to death too many times in the past. Please search harder next time.

I will repeat the same basic info that is posted every time:

This is not the forum to debate things like this... there are many people who make music now, rather than thinking about the future. There are many Digidesign Mix systems (and even older ones) still in use, many on OS9.

If you have a problem with the management of the platform, please discuss/debate this with Creamware. This is not an official forum and we consider posts like this to be pointless trolling, because there is absolutely NOTHING that we can do about the situation.. we simply like making music with what we have. If you have a problem with the platform, sell it and move on.

I am not being a blind defender of Creamware - I'm just a musician who is realistic about what happens in the world and prefer to get on with doing things rather than worry about what may happen later on.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: darkrezin on 2006-05-23 09:06 ]</font>

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Tue May 23, 2006 8:15 am

I don't think the Scope software looks old -- I'd just like faster chips and some of the bugs to be worked out.

Running native software at 1.5ms still has a long way to go before it becomes as stable and fast as Scope. Native synths with good-sounding algorithms (Arturia, Rapture, Pentagon, etc.) take up enormous amounts of CPU power, especially at low latencies. Scope is still competitive in that department!

Still, it'd be great if development of the Scope software continues!

Shayne

organix · Post by **organix** » Tue May 23, 2006 8:31 am

On 2006-05-23 09:02, darkrezin wrote:
Yo

This topic has been beaten to death too many times in the past. Please search harder next time.

I will repeat the same basic info that is posted every time:

This is not the forum to debate things like this...

Then, I have to say sorry. It wasn't my intention to break any forum rules.
I was wrong to thought, that discussing the possible future of scope and collect some other meanings, would be some kind of "general scope discussion".

Better to close this thread until some more ppl begins to discuss.

regards
Markus

erminardi · Post by **erminardi** » Tue May 23, 2006 8:38 am

You must imagine Scope more like an hardware instead software. If U had buy i.e. a Korg Wavestation EX in 1990, do U now think that is obsolete??? And a hardware LA2A compressor?
I think not so...
Korg stops development of Wavestation in middle 90s. LA2A is very very old and out of actual connection standard (for example).
But they are irreplaceable gears!
Scope is to me a similar thing, but more "lucky" because after a lot of years, since first apparition in market, is still in (slow) evolution and still the top choice for synth & some other features.
Scope is alive and is a stuff that not required frequent upgrade like native software (I hate this constant upgrade policy PC hardware dependant, it's like a drug!!!)
Scope is still valid and unsorpassed because years ago it was FUTURISTIC!

petal · Post by **petal** » Tue May 23, 2006 8:49 am

Well, you are new here to the forum, and your questions have been on everybodies mind for quite a few years.

I don't know if you know that Creamware are still recovering from big financial problems. I believe that the general concensus is that if the ASB's becomes a big success we will again see development on SCOPE.

Also, it's expensive to develop new hardware, especially if you don't have any certain knowledge of what the hardwareplatform will look like, which have been uncertain for the past few years. Which MB-bus would you focus on and why: PCI, PCI-E, PCI-X, ? - and when did you know for sure that this was the MB-bus of the future?
Would it be better to invest in a USB, Fireware or custom-interface solution?

I just think that we all should be happy that Creamware is actully still alive, and that there is actually hope for future development of SCOPE, something I didn't believe in only 1 year ago.

erminardi · Post by **erminardi** » Tue May 23, 2006 9:35 am

On 2006-05-23 09:49, petal wrote:
...or custom-interface solution?

Yes a custom interface solution like a simple and affordable PCI/PCIe/PCI-X with a custom port like i.e. simil-firewire or other format, that allow to communicate with the external main box, that contains DSP and I/O maybe some assignable midi pot/faders, could be the best solution.
When the standard changes is just simple to replace the old PCI card with another named i.e. "PZXF-bus" (what hell will be in future!!!) and the main ext. box remains the same. Upgradable in times with daughter boards with more DSP (like NOAH).
The custom link interface could allow lower latencies than Firewire or USB2.
A PCMCIA (or new PCIe) interface card (like RME) available for laptops.
Ah, only a dream!
Or not?

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue May 23, 2006 9:59 am

with current Scope sales you couldn't even finance the design concept of such a thing

cheers, tom

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Tue May 23, 2006 10:36 am

Design concepts can come relatively cheaply.

Development of them to a market ready product however, I'd imagine is another matter entirely. Lot's of cash required to pay for manufacturing.

okantah · Post by **okantah** » Tue May 23, 2006 10:41 am

Bear in mind the qualities of the platform !
Which needs to be maintain to the next level,other wise too much fire back as usual.
cheers

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Tue May 23, 2006 12:42 pm

On 2006-05-23 07:03, organix wrote:

Native AU/VST devices will become better in latency, better in sound and really better in functionality. Maybe in a few years there will be no reason to use SFP, because native plugins will better with the same latency.

I'll believe it when I see it =] A few reason why it'll never happen:

- VST doesn't have any infrastructure to support oversampling, so you end up with plugins that eat up a whole 2GHz CPU for 8 voices, which can be accomplished on a 200MHz CPU. need more power? add another 2GHz CPU. huge huge waste.

- Dual-core won't help that much, since even though there are 2 cores on the CPU, there is still just *a single interface*, i.e. both cores share the same throughput as a single core CPU. So you get better performance, but nowhere near 2x the performance. As people add more cores to the CPUs, this throughput problem will only get bigger.

- Lower latencies??? For that to happen, the motherboard architectures and operating system software would have to be *simplified*, and that REALLY isn't what is happening. With a DSP architecture/hardware, you have the DSPs pretty much tagged straight onto the DACs, so software plugins will ALWAYS have higher latencies. a DSP can easily handle the throughput necessary for audio processing with almost no buffering, while with a computer/software based solution, the data has to travel thru CPU/memory interfaces, interconnect buses, PCI/whatever buses, with a fair bit of buffering in between all those parts to handle the multitasking, only to reach the DACs. Yeah yeah, lower latencies, I'll believe it when I see it =D

- VST is complete sh*t (sorry) for hardware integration. UAD/PoCo pull it off because they are pure DSP accelerators and don't deal with live/real-time signals at ALL. They are unusable live. This doesn't matter to the automation-only crowd, but seeing how there are still actual proper live musicians around, this is an issue. If you take a look at all the systems that tried to mix live/realtime signals, they all had huge problems. Waldrof tried it with the AFB16, and it killed them. Creamware tried it with XTC mode, and they completely stopped supporting it. Access tried it with the TI, with some success, but the Virus mailing lists are FULL of people who have huge problems and are pretty much saying what you are saying about Creamware, they have lost it, they s*ck, blah blah. Starting to see a pattern. I seriously doubt anyone else is going to try it at this point. It's possible to get it to work, of course, but the almost-impossible thing to do is to get it to work *reliably*, *all the time*, on *all platforms/computers*.

- With Vista, you will very likely need 2x the amount of processing to get exactly the same performances you get under XP right now, if the last 15 years of Microsoft software is used as reference.

- If you think 64-bit processing is all the rage and is going to double your performance, think again, and look at all the released benchmarks up to this point for confirmations. POVRay64 running under Linux64, all optimised for 64-bit AMD processors, barely get a 20% speedup. Maybe in 5-10 years you can expect compilers to be properly optimized for 64-bit.

- The WHOLE rest of the computer industry is moving in EXACTLY the opposite way of trying to do everything in software. Most of the graphics/3D used to be handled in software (on PCs I mean, Amiga and other platforms had the multiple-DSP-like-architecture down 20 years ago (sadly they had other issues)), then they added 3D accelerators (== DSP), then the 3D accelerators were integrated to the graphics card, then they let you put several (still DSP-accelerated) graphics card together with SLI and PCI-E, now there are Physics Processing Units-based card to off-load all (most/some) of the physics calculation for games OFF the CPU. Given all this, why anyone would think that trying to cram ALL audio processing back onto the CPU is a good idea, or likely to happen, is completely beyond me.

- The ONLY reason a CPU can do any sort of useful processing is *THERE ARE DSPs EMBEDDED INTO THE CORES* (that's what altivec, MMX, SSE and all those "extensions" are.) The difference, though, the distance between those embedded-in-core DSPs and the DACs is HUGE, plus they have to share the CPU's interface and throughput with the rest of the sytem, i.e. system software, application software, etc etc, while if they are outside the CPU, they are 100% dedicated to the audio processing, AND they don't have to share their throughput with anything. A plugins-running-off-CPU architecture will NEVER be able to compete with this, forget it. Plus, with a CPU-only architecture, if you need to add processing power, you need to add a whole other CPU running at 2-3GHz (== MUCH bigger power consumption, much more complex circuits needed on the motherboard to handle the dual CPUs, they will still share a single interconnect/PCI-like bus, etc,) while with a DSP-not-on-the-CPU architecture you can just add another card and be done with it, and that same card will easily eat 10x less power than the CPU equivalent (compare a 15-DSP card 15W power consompution with modern CPUs that often go over 150W for the Intel ones.) This translates into lower costs, less heat, MORE reliable systems (since the warmer a circuit is, the less reliable it tends to get), and you don't need 7 fans that sound like airplanes to cool down your audio machine.

- I've heard this "DSP is dying! Software plugins will make hardware obselete" litany for years and years, and it hasn't gotten anywhere near tangible yet. Plus the whole modeling-hardware-with-software thing doesn't work well for some analog systems, since the mathematical modeling makes a couple assumptions on the Linearity and Time-Invariance side of things (i.e. LTI systems), and modeling BOTH at the same time still isn't anywhere near a solved problem. You can kinda model Time Variance with multiple frequency-response curves for different input levels/types, and you can kinda model Non-Linearity with Volterra series (or something), but it's for from perfect and all-encompassing yet. Plus there's the whole computer-as-instrument thing which really isn't too hot if you are not part of the automation crowd. I much prefer to have a stand-alone synth than a controller-keyboard-plus-computer/laptop combo, and that's just one example. Sorry, hardware isn't going anywhere.

To give you a proper analogy on the latency side of things, what you are saying is pretty much like saying that a factory having to ship all its products across town to get them package will save time versus just moving them next door, or packaging them in the same building as they are built in. And this is assuming a town getting MUCH bigger, with more people, more traffic, and MUCH more complex traffic lanes and traffic patterns. Sorry, but even in the BEST of cases, it'll be *the same speed*, but the next-door architecture will always have the lower cost.

Now if you could convince hardware manufacturer and operating-systems builders to trim down and optimize their systems, then you might eventually have some sort of a point, but right now they are making WAY too much money forcing everyone to upgrade the hardware and the software every 5 years, so I can only wish good luck =].

As for the specific Creamware vs UAD/PoCo type of debate, they both cater to completely different crowds. If you do pure automation and never work with realtime signals, then yes, of course, an UAD/PoCo type of system will be fine for you, while the Creamware system is MUCH nicer if you do any sort of recording/realtime tracking type of work. It is also a VERY dumb debate, because *you can easily use both type of cards in the same system, AND software plugins!!!* at the same time.

This being said, I'm not against software plugins, I'm 100% in favor of using all available tools and processing power in the course of audio production, software definitely have their place (and I use some and I love them, even though elementalaudio just sold out to roger f**king nichols and now sell their plugins for 2x 3x the price grrrrr (sorry, random rant =D)), and the nice thing about software plugins is that, as much as piracy is an issue, it also put awesome tools in the hand of people who could otherwise not necessairly afford them (kids, students, poor people, 3rd world developing countries, stranded alien spaceship pilots, etc), which is really great considering the completely messed up stat of most endoctrination I MEAN education systems around the planet.

It really isn't a sound-quality issue at all. Sound quality, as far as audio is concerned, is mostly a function of the algorithm developers, and the ADC/DAC part of the system. Some software plugins sound awesome, some sound like crap, some hardware/DSP plugins sound awesome, some sound like crap, and one person's crap is another's gold.

At this point, there is more than enough information available for any given individual to make an informed decision about computer hardware and software, and it's very much a function of how you prefer to work. Not everyone is a pure-automation VSTi type of person, and I, for one, would never want to let go of Creamware's routing system, even though I am considering buying a UAD for the Neve (and other) plugins. I also have a Virus and love every tiny bit of it (and it loves me back!) but I also love the Creamware synths (and the mixers. OMG. secret weapon!)

I find integrating outboard hardware to be much nicer and much easier with Scope than it is with a purely softsynth/sequencer type of system, i.e. I can load any of my hardware synths/outboard gear as a module in Scope! I can also do the same with software. Other people will prefer just VST/VSTi, and that's their right, and it's completely fine, and I don't see why one should exclude the other.

If you don't like the way Scope works, just get something else, no need to get all gloomy and negative and apocalyptic about the eventual future of the platform, just get something you like.

As for the whole no-upgrades-in-years, I wonder if you realize it's a good thing? On a *properly setup* XP system, Scope is definitely the most stable software I have. Some devices have glitches, but the software itself is pretty solid.

People who have crashes generally have improperly setup boxes or conflicting hardware, and it's indeed a HUGE challenge at this point to build and properly setup a functional DAW, and alot of people mistake Creamware-stuff instability with just standard Windows-crashes-all-the-time. Sorry, but just take a look at any forum pertaining to audio hardware/interfaces and software, and you will find exactly the same kind of discussions you will find here. Scope has glitches, for sure, my Virus also has glitches, Logic also has glitches, and hahah just look at all the Cubase SX3 threads!!! It's far from perfect. Windows is also full, FULL of glitches (and some serious bugs, which come from design flaws and can't be easily fixed -- and no Vista doesn't look like it'll be anywhere near better on this front =])

And I still don't get the drivers stuff. Did the XP driver infrastructure change in the last 5 years?? I don't think it did. It's still pretty crappy also, seriously the WDM drivers infrastructure isn't anything to write home about, and if you've done any DirectX/etc audio programming, you should know it's really on the painful/unreliable side. I've had a couple issues with a couple (not ALL) games and Scope drivers, but no show stopper, PLUS you can easily put another standard cheap soundcard for gaming if it's an issue. I only use Scope right now for my audio, and it works fine for music, videos, the games I use, etc. Can't imagine what the big fuss over drivers is, and drivers for a different operating systems are USELESS without the whole software to go with it.

Seriously, once 64bit OS are established and common (they aren't yet) and there is a demand, I don't doubt Creamware will port it. THIS BEING SAID, even if there's no upgrade to it ever, I can't say that would worry me very much. People talk about software-plugins as an all-in-one solution, but I know alot of people doing game music and audio contracts for movies and things, and they *all* end up having several computers (think 5 or 6) to run all the ultra-heavy sample colletions/gigastudio libraries they use for their contracts. So keeping a computer around for Scope really isn't an issue for me, and seeing how it's still easy and trivial to buy computer parts for PDP-11 computers that are older than me (thanks eBay!) I don't see any reason to freak out yet. Maybe in 20 years I'll start worrying/shopping around for something else, for the moment I'm so happy, I run full audio projects at like 20% CPU load, with only a single outboard synth. Ultra minimal setup, ultra maximal results. Audio production never has been as good as it is now!

Sorry for the endless rant =P

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Tue May 23, 2006 12:51 pm

On 2006-05-23 08:40, organix wrote:

Check out some of the competitors, like UAD or Tc's Powercore. Look what nice devices, software, stylish guis and cards they regulary release.

And completely unsuable in live situations =] You are comparing apples and robots here, UAD and PoCo are block-based DSP accelerators without inputs or outputs, and aren't very useful without a VST host and latency compensation. Creamware Scope is a sample-based processing devices that also deal with inputs and outputs and real-time signals, that is usable without ASIO and any sort of latency. The subtle difference might escape you on a usability level, but on a technical level it's HUGE.

You seem to forget not everyone is a pure-automation person and like to work this way, there's still a ton of musicians who actually *perform* on instruments (even keyboards and synths.) Plus, like I mentioned in my previous endless rant, you can use both UAD/PoCo and Creamware cards in the same system just fine. Why you would want to create some sort of opposition/choose-between-either-platform is beyond me. And don't call them competitors, because they really aren't the same type of systems.

As for how devices look, I understand this to be an issue for magazines and promotion, but I, for one, am more interested in how they sound. And on this front, the Scope plugins more than deliver, they sound incredible, and that's not really something you can argue with. You can *prefer* something else all you want, the Scope plugins are more than proper tools for whatever audio production job.

What it really comes down to is how you prefer working, not 64bit drivers device-look or whatever.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Tue May 23, 2006 1:08 pm

U R A GOD amongst men Symbiote !!

dawman · Post by **dawman** » Tue May 23, 2006 1:39 pm

A Fellow Scope Live Player?
I use Scope live and don't care about anything but right now. And right now I am a happy camper. John Bowen alone will keep Scope alive. Learn what you have is my motto, and Scope is so deep that when computers/software are at 256bit, w/ MS Windows 2010, I will still be learning this deep masterpiece in which we invest our future. Besides PoCo's "1" synthesizer is so weak, they should pay us to listen to it. I think a young child of the developer made that algorhytm.

To Us, And Those Like Us,

Post by **hubird** » Tue May 23, 2006 3:05 pm

@ Organix, at least I support your call for keeping the discussion going (now and then

).
I'm on mac, so I urgently want OSX support

I recently let up a balloon again, in a side note, what else can I do

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Tue May 23, 2006 3:48 pm

On 2006-05-23 16:05, hubird wrote:
@ Organix, at least I support your call for keeping the discussion going (now and then ).
I'm on mac, so I urgently want OSX support
I recently let up a balloon again, in a side note, what else can I do

Buy a PC

(rolling a "balloon" right now, expecting it to go really high (on a side note ofcourse))

Post by **hubird** » Tue May 23, 2006 5:21 pm

On 2006-05-23 16:48, piddi wrote:
Buy a PC

why didn't I think of that...

firubbi · Post by **firubbi** » Wed May 24, 2006 9:05 am

On 2006-05-23 18:21, hubird wrote:
On 2006-05-23 16:48, piddi wrote:
Buy a PC
why didn't I think of that...

true