Pro Flexor for Scope 5 - PETITION

[braincell]

We will wait and see what happens. Those who buy it I am sure will not be disappointed.

[Shroomz~>]

Bill, no offence, but that is a serious 'Natural Born Killer' style mug shot.

[bill3107]

...

Just few days to wait now ... I remember when i received my first scope pro, it was so exciting ! ... So much power just for audio was stunning. Xite power seems now huge.

You are right Braincell, it is time to wait now. And yes, I hope (and think) we won't be desappointed although I have never seen any software based interface without bugs But Scope is now mature so I think that everything should be almost perfect quite soon.

[siriusbliss]

CPU DSP with lots of RAM to handle all the other resource overhead in computer hardware is NOT the same as dedicated DSP.

It is simply NOT the same thing comparing apples to oranges just because audio comes out the back-end.

After almost 30 years in the hardware engineering business, I can see the benefits of the Scope philosophy because 1) it's NOT cheap developing hardware, 2) hardware oftentimes takes more support overhead, and 3) therefore simply costs more.

I'm no real dedicated electronic musician, but I can HEAR the Scope synths cut the VST's to threads, and it's due to the DSP overhead.

Either flexor gets added to Scope 5, or not - I can always network to my old PC with dedicated Flexor running on Scope Pro card that I've had in my machine(s) for a long time now. Not everyone will have this luxury.

Scope 5 and Xite are either going to be a breakthrough in the industry or not.

Here's to both parties working it out so that we can move on.

Greg

[Shayne White]

Why can't Sonic Core make the modules run without Scope or Excite?

I think they want to force people to buy something. You can get a Quadcore with a lot of RAM now. After Quadcore, there will be 8 core with more RAM and so on. At some point, you do not need DSP chips. There are tons of affordable and many quality audio and midi interfaces. That is not what we need. All we need is the software. Again (my opinion).

Power doesn't matter because once you burn an audio track, you unload your modules and all your power is free again. There is a feature "Freeze VSTi", it turns VSTi tracks into audio then you can undo it.

Electronic music is a recording art. We don't play live, that is for guitar bands. The Xite is a live product for people who don't play live.

And do you think that we don't have outboard synth gear that we want to plug into Scope and route audio through plugins latency-free?

Such a thing can ONLY be done on the SC platform. You can't even do that on PowerCore and UAD-1 (which is why I said earlier I don't like them). We don't just need the software -- the hardware end of Scope serves as an entire studio hub, a giant patchbay. Scope also serves as my live mixing desk when recording acoustic audio. Using other companies' extremely limited sound cards like RME is difficult and cumbersome compared to Scope. I still use Scope for live audio routing even though my DAW is now on a different computer. I can't, and will not, use anything but Scope for those kinds of purposes.

And the best part is that Scope is now coming to OS X and PCI-E through Xite. To quote Gene Kelley, Who Can Ask For Anything More????

[Mr Arkadin]

Electronic music is a recording art. We don't play live, that is for guitar bands. The Xite is a live product for people who don't play live.

And i'm reminded yet again why the mute button is so good. Maybe even Jimmy might not agree with you on this one.

[braincell]

CPU DSP with lots of RAM to handle all the other resource overhead in computer hardware is NOT the same as dedicated DSP.

Greg

You haven't read any of the Arturia reviews. They are wrong? How can each and every review by different authors be wrong about this? They are all saying this software is incredible. It's the same thing. They love the Arturia synthesizers. Let's have competition. Let's have SC be forced to drive their prices down. Put up or shut up. They can't continue to take advantage of customers like this.

[braincell]

That would be nice but there is no sequencer.

[braincell]

You know, a simple sequencer like Reason has would be great in Scope. In Reason, you don't use midi to automate the knobs. Automated Scope knobs are more tedious (in my opinion), also there are a limited amount of controllers. In Reason, you don't even have to worry about what number it is. The red box around knobs indicates they have been automated. Original and brilliant.

Obviously Reason doesn't sound nearly as good as Scope but it is much better thought out. They should work on a Reason Platform for Scope. It will never happen but that is my dream.

Ok, Scope is more pretty. That does not matter to me. It's a tool. It is not your girlfriend.

[braincell]

Hehe,

I have a problem with Mackie because I lost my password and can't download updates. I should call them but still that sucks, also they said you get all this free software when you buy their gear, then you find out that all of it is demos!

[siriusbliss]

CPU DSP with lots of RAM to handle all the other resource overhead in computer hardware is NOT the same as dedicated DSP.

Greg

You haven't read any of the Arturia reviews. They are wrong? How can each and every review by different authors be wrong about this? They are all saying this software is incredible. It's the same thing. They love the Arturia synthesizers. Let's have competition. Let's have SC be forced to drive their prices down. Put up or shut up. They can't continue to take advantage of customers like this.

again, apples and oranges.
price-wise, feature-wise, functionality-wise not the same.

The reviewers can only love what they hear.

Greg

[garyb]

arturia is crap(useful crap though ), regardless of what the paid reviews report. obviously, there's someone who doesn't know how the magazine bisiness works. reason is an even bigger piece of garbage. obviously, there's someone who has little to no experience with high-end audio of any kind....

personally, i don't care so much about synthesis. i'm a guitarist and an audio engineer. i've spent more on mic pres, than most have spent on their whole system. since this stuff is tools, i feel confident that i have the best, most useable toolbox available in a price range that can still be called affordable. of course, what i consider good gear tends to cost many thousands of dollars....

the bottom line is, use what fits your needs and leave the rest alone. there's no reason for hate or slagging other products if they don't do what you like. there is NO ONE here on planetz who is fit to judge gear for everyone and anyone who thinks otherwise is a true idiot who knows NOTHING about gear or production(though he may know his own needs). any negativity from me is strictly reactionary to ridiculous claims that were only made to bring forth a reaction.

NO ONE PRODUCT WILL DO EVERYTHING JUST EXACTLY THE WAY EVERYONE WANTS IT TO. THAT'S THE REASON FOR VARIETY!

to get back on topic, personally i welcome flexor technology in Scope AND as a vst product....

-btw, mackie is NOT even remotely close to high end gear. ALL mackie gear is consumer stuff designed to sound reasonably good, but still make a price point.

[braincell]

Gary no company is perfect. While the sound of Scope is superior, as I pointed out, the GUI is less elegant. You obviously haven't used Reason much so therefore you must abstain from commenting on it. As a guitarist, you are not sequence oriented I assume. Someone else mentioned (I forgot who) he is a guitarist and uses Scope. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of Scope and Reason users are not guitarists. You don't know much about sequencing and don't care. I understand that. Sequencing is an important part of most electronic music.

[astroman]

...Obviously Reason doesn't sound nearly as good as Scope but it is much better thought out. They should work on a Reason Platform for Scope. It will never happen but that is my dream. ...

Reason is just the extension of one single idea - that TB/TR Rebirth thingy
it's got a few additions that make it look slightly more complex, but in fact it isn't
compared to Scope it is just plain stupid - anyone with a little patience can write such an app.
Mostly you're gonna struggle with Windoze OS quirks, but not much on the algorithmic part.

Opposed to that Scope is a kind of graphical programming environment that may even be able to generate DSP code on the fly.
It integrates perfectly with existing sequencers - no need to re-invent the wheel.
As mentioned numerous times - a DSP cannot do anything useful at all for loading and saving files, as it cannot do GUI stuff.
That's the domain of the general purpose CPU and there's lots of stuff from crap to excellence, but for sure there's a solution to cover any personal preference.

There are applications that retain each and every bit of Scope's audio quality, and there would be no advantage in performance either.
CPU load will be identical, regardless if the task is running under Scope's or a sequencer's control.
The one and only valid point might be a completely independant machine running it's own custom OS, but that would be asking a bit too much, wouldn't it ?
I mean... you don't plan to spend a 5-figure amount on such a box, do you ?

cheers, Tom

[braincell]

Whatever you can say about dedicated music hardware versus music software running on a standard computer, you can not argue with the fact that computers are advancing in power much more quickly than music hardware is advancing in power. I can only assume this will continue and it will eventually put all music hardware companies out of business. That is my prediction and I am going to stick with it so come back here in 10 or 20 years and we will see if I am right, or try to remember this post. I am going to copy it and attempt to save it.

Bill Gates knew that it didn't matter how sloppy Microsoft code was because eventually computers would be so fast it wouldn't matter. As crazy as it sounds, he was right.

This is July 29, 2008

[Fluxpod]

Whatever you can say about dedicated music hardware versus music software running on a standard computer, you can not argue with the fact that computers are advancing in power much more quickly than music hardware is advancing in power. I can only assume this will continue and it will eventually put all music hardware companies out of business. That is my prediction and I am going to stick with it so come back here in 10 or 20 years and we will see if I am right, or try to remember this post. I am going to copy it and attempt to save it.

Bill Gates knew that it didn't matter how sloppy Microsoft code was because eventually computers would be so fast it wouldn't matter. As crazy as it sounds, he was right.

This is July 29, 2008

Yeah thats why uad cards sell like hot chicken and people with 8 core macs and pcs are all over it......or Powercore cards or or or...BLA!!!

[braincell]

As I recall, Creamware had a card which sold for $8,000. What genius thought of that?

[astroman]

yes, he was - but you're telling only one half of the story
in fact the 2nd part probably even surprised Mr. Gates himself...
he didn't really care about performance - as a smart a** he was more after complexity, as only that will effectively blur people's perspective and create dependancy, as noone else can handle the product.
I must admit he succeeded pretty much and I bet one of my Pulsars he didn't originally expect people to be that stupid to follow like lemmings. LMAO or should I frown ?

imho there still is a small segment of excellent software, but compared to what's offered generally it's a drop in the ocean.
he's genius in moneymaking and a nice fellow regarding charity, but his main merits are the decrease of intellectual level and the provision of the tools for the Big Brother state.
As Homer would have put it Micro$oft - source and solution of all computer problems

cheers, Tom

[astroman]

As I recall, Creamware had a card which sold for $8,000. What genius thought of that?

elcheapo - it included the developement system plus a license to exploits the results commercially
industrial systems cost a multitude of that and I assure you I would have bought it for twice the amount if it had been available around 1990 - for the ultrasound imaging project in a local hospital.

cheers, Tom

[braincell]

There are a few good ones but it will only grow which is why i would rather have this than the Xite: