UA Apollo

[Immanuel]

I don't see any poop in warp's post either.

[dante]

'open' is not always percieved as a good thing by some of the market. Propellorheads, though making Reason more like a DAW, won't open it to the VST world, and many see this as the reason for its stability.

UAD have a nice (closed) niche for classic processors and that strategy has done them well, while 3rd party openness has been part of Scopes success since early days. Theres a place for each.

As for what UAD need - I agree with your previous statement GregH about user expectation for more DSP (chip lust).

Any glances at Open Scope/Scope 6/ParseQ/ software?

Yes, just read the NAMM thread for details.
UAD needs to jump on the open-Scope development - but I don't think their ego's will let them.
Greg

Not much on that thread - a mention about how many ParseQ features are still to be added, but what about the ones it already has ?

[siriusbliss]

Not much on that thread - a mention about how many ParseQ features are still to be added, but what about the ones it already has ?

Julian showed me the 'basics' of the program where it's at. It has plenty of room for advancement at this early stage.
Basic VST GUI popups were working with some modules, and routing showing the flexibility of assembling either a working environment, or even a quick-build of little sub-systems and modules by the user depending on what their requirements may be.

So far still a basic MIDI sequencer with piano roll...

I can see a user trading area - sharing modules like baseball cards.

I told Julian that in my opinion it would be easier to focus on building a unique seamless Scope DAW, rather than just build another DAW that's the same as what's already out there and established.


Greg

[garyb]

ok, my apologies.

i guess i can get pretty cranky myself. i'm going to put myself down for a nap after my spanking.

[dante]

I told Julian that in my opinion it would be easier to focus on building a unique seamless Scope DAW, rather than just build another DAW that's the same as what's already out there and established.
Greg

Well, we need the meat like Audio tracking and MIDI arrange page deal. I think the fact it tightly couples to Scope DSP would make it different enough from the others, but to get rid of Cubase costs, we need something thats similar in many other respects.

Im hoping that maybe 2 years down the track, Im not paying Stein for burgers anymore.

[siriusbliss]

I told Julian that in my opinion it would be easier to focus on building a unique seamless Scope DAW, rather than just build another DAW that's the same as what's already out there and established.
Greg

Well, we need the meat like Audio tracking and MIDI arrange page deal. I think the fact it tightly couples to Scope DSP would make it different enough from the others, but to get rid of Cubase costs, we need something thats similar in many other respects.

I'm hoping that maybe 2 years down the track, I'm not paying Stein for burgers anymore.

So far Julian is still a one-man-band on this, and he's open to all recommendations.
I'd settle for basic, really good audio engine capture (even ASIO or any other high-res audio format supposedly coming down the line (such as from Apple), which I can then fly into my DAW-of-choice and work from there.
Or even just use ParseQ to trick Samplitude into thinking it's working in a low-latency environment.
Same for MIDI - just add MIDI export to the editor, and I'll just dump the MIDI files into Samplitude and go from there.
This would be a good first-step to see how well everything's working before getting into full-blown editing features.

Just my 2cents (which in today's economy is about negative 5cents).

Greg

[dante]

Put it this way, if theres speculation about whether ParseQ would be paid for seperately or just part of Scope, I'd gladly hand over what it costs to upgrade Steinbug annually (or even a bit more) to have something that was Scopewise instead.

As long as it ran say Kontakt as a VST and then Scope mixing and plugs integrated, with basic arrange / MIDI and Audio editing, then its a go-er. Rewire would be a welcome bonus as well.

I dont need all this other Steinbloat.

[bLiNd]

I think I will just use both Xite and Apollo LOL

[siriusbliss]

Put it this way, if theres speculation about whether ParseQ would be paid for seperately or just part of Scope, I'd gladly hand over what it costs to upgrade Steinbug annually (or even a bit more) to have something that was Scopewise instead.

As long as it ran say Kontakt as a VST and then Scope mixing and plugs integrated, with basic arrange / MIDI and Audio editing, then its a go-er. Rewire would be a welcome bonus as well.

I dont need all this other Steinbloat.

In the meantime there are plenty of light-weight DAWs such as Mulab, etc.
...and Samplitude is happy with Scope here.

But the more direct DSP bridging will be nice I think.

Greg

[Mr Arkadin]

Put it this way, if theres speculation about whether ParseQ would be paid for seperately or just part of Scope, I'd gladly hand over what it costs to upgrade Steinbug annually (or even a bit more) to have something that was Scopewise instead.

As long as it ran say Kontakt as a VST and then Scope mixing and plugs integrated, with basic arrange / MIDI and Audio editing, then its a go-er. Rewire would be a welcome bonus as well.

I dont need all this other Steinbloat.

Exactly the same scenario as me (except not bothered by Rewire), and I would add BFD2 (which is just nother streaming sample player like Kontakt). I am not Steiny fan, but I just couldn't get on with Reaper, Ableton etc.

[dante]

The only feature I would REALLY miss in Cubloat is VariAudio.... and something like that could take a while to materialise in ParseQ. But a really good DSP based pitch-correction algo might be a workaround.

[Mr Arkadin]

The only feature I would REALLY miss in Cubloat is VariAudio....

...er, whassat? That's probably not in Cubase Studio I suppose - I've never seen it anyway. I was too tight to plump up the dosh for the full one - I don't need unlimited VST tracks and VST effects etc., I hardly use them.

[garyb]

variaudio is steinberg's version of autotune.

[vascomusic]

variaudio is steinberg's version of autotune.

PitchCorrect (VST plugin) is Steinberg's version of Antares' Autotune
VariAudio is more (an integrated feature in the Cubase audio editor) like Melodyne.

[garyb]

ok, tomato, tomahto.

as you can see from this autotune image
http://www.antarestech.com/images/ATEvo ... c_full.jpg

variaudio
http://www.digitalmusicdoctor.com/revie ... o_edit.jpg

melodyne
http://media.soundonsound.com/sos/mar07 ... ader_l.jpg

autotune, melodyne and variaudio are pretty similar.

[dante]

Yes, the older version of Antares autotune, and the older 'pitch correct' in Cubase are similar too in that they dont have the piano roll like manipulation. They just let you assign a scale and a few other parameters like speed etc, and work in realtime.

The 'off-line' piano roll type 'midi' like editor is far superior IMO (although more laborious) because it yields much better result and you have more choice in melodic manipulation.

Having said that, it would be interesting to see if ParseQ (supporting VST) would host Antares EVO effectively yielding same functionality as VariAudio in bloatbase.

[siriusbliss]

It's going to be interesting to see how ParseQ handles '3rd party' VST or VSTi plugins and hopefully take advantage of low-latency in Scope.
I'd rather Julian focus on this capability than just re-invent the endless/glutted DAW wheel.

FWIW, Samplitude also has it's Elastic Audio feature, and most DAWs now have the ability to run Melodyne as well.

I'd like to see Julian focus on the uniqueness of ParseQ as it relates to Scope - then we'll be one step ahead of UA's feature-set (as far as plugin handling is concerned).

Meanwhile I'd also like to see Dirk over at bxDigital return to the Scope development fold, since they are already involved in promoting their 'plugin developer alliance'. And for that matter SPL....

So I'm seeing a cross-platform type community expanding IF/WHEN they (re)discover open-Scope.

Greg

[dante]

Yep - but it would be good to see the day all my annual 'update' money go to S|C / Biscuit, and to arrive at that scenario the functionality has to be there to kick the others out.

[Fluxpod]

So.After reading up on this whole scope 6-Parseq thing i am still not sure why the world needs another sequencer.The whole thing imo seems to be a bit like reinventing the wheel.There are countless sequencing apps that are working right now.And the whole bloat cubase talk here is again...puzzling me.Why o why do we have this Scope superior complex feeling? Cubase too bloated? Well let me tell you something...there are users ...and not only a few, who need and demand these features!People here are talking about this "new" sequencer as its there.And then i read timeframes for 2 years....Seriously?

Why in hell do i want this? I have all the features in a sequencer available now with as Example cubase and Ableton.Even max and osc support for controllers.
What i want is and i am only scratching the surface here...Bugfixes! Seqencers in modular and all seq based scope plugs the whole 64 vxd hell fixed.Yeah thats pretty much it for ME.Then the next thing i usually get blunt faces when i tell people to buy an xite...Dsp management,this needs to be fully automatic.I cant, and i wish i could recomment the xite to newcommers because of that(i tried).Its impossible or almost impossible to tell these people the routine(which i get i really do) of putting plugs to specifix dsp´s.Its a clusterfuck thats needs adressing ASAP!

I really hope this stuff gets adressed .Because...i want my scope to spread.And i thought about putting this up here for a couple of mins..but i like this plattform so hey ...

I love the open scope idea btw.And i am a user for 12 years and will be with the plattform for many years to come!
If i am Missing things please tell me.( i get the integration of parseq with scope but thats no biggie for me at last)

[garyb]

i NEVER go through the machinations that you do.

i don't need anpther sequencer either, but i'm not against one that's native to the dsps.
i actually like cubase myself, but i'm not against something that works better.

dsp allocation can stay as it is, and an XITE works just fine automatically. if you want to use it at it's bleeding edge, then go ahead. improvements are welcome, however. this is my opinion and many others as well. i'm amazed at what people think a box should do, but hey, i'm not against that either. even with it's limits it still performs at a level that only $150,000 can match.

you will get bugfixes, parseq has nothing to do with bugfixes as it's a product of Audio Buiscut not S|C.