MPA: A whole new Chapter for SCOPE and you are invited

[Mikael-R]

I don't see what the drama is about. Frank wrote what he was planning to do with his own company and he clearly pointed out that he hadn't talket to Holger yet, probably because they weren't the best of friends. He has abandoned some projects he didn't longer believe in, that seems like a helathy approach (not a sign of disloyality)
I guess what it boils down to is some conflict about some plugins that were sold by inDSP that they hadn't the rights to, or someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

[valis]

Hey guys, this is the same underlying Scope (v4 era) implementation on Analog Devices technology that was used for Plugiator and etc, implemented for a lower cost solution that is in-line with the tabletop trend that has been...trending...for some time now. It should work with Scope or any other studio tech just fine, but I doubt it will drive new users to SonicCore or vice versa to the degree that I am seeing discussed. It does seem to be semi-modular (in the techy sense of the word, not in the classic analog wall-mounted sense of the musical world).

Holger was clear that we should avoid lashing out at Frank or assuming too much, and so please respect that. Otherwise, consider this just as you would any other new tabletop tech for us music mavens, something that may or may not suit your chosen workflows and be evaluated as such.

[yayajohn]

Thanks valis; I don't really see any "Frank bashing" going on here as of late but it's probably best to remind people to mind their manners.
Reputation matters to smart consumers, there's no drama it's as simple as that.
Mikail; Your unbridled enthusiasm for this project is starting to reek of a vested interest. I'm not really sure if it's personal or monetary but perhaps it's that you've already purchased this and wish others to join you? If so I'm looking forward to your unbiased review once this ships, especially value for money paid.

[Mikael-R]

I’m mostly taking on the role of the optimist to balance out the pessimists and keep the discussion more interesting.
I didn’t say that what I wrote earlier was a likely scenario or that it would happen soon.
The most likely scenario would probably be a very slow growth if the company survive, the market is already saturated with good and cheap products. Yet, at the same time if they can offer something that can simplify and remove clutter while keeping very high sound quality then I think they have a good chance in the long run. If one can remove midi interfaces, audio cables, mixers and do everything via ethernet cables and some MPA boxes that you can modify however you want (I’m not sure if that is what they are going to be able to do), that is going to be desirable.
The thing that impresses me the most is how adaptable and flexible it seems to be, so it’s like it’s bound to find some use here and there unless the company goes bankrupt.
The worst case scenario for SC’s part might be that people that had considered buying the Xite-1 for some classic creamware plugins now instead buys the MPA box. On the other hand it could be a stepping stone into the system that SC always have needed.

It would be good if someone that actually know what they are talking about can correct my specualtions, I just spent some time on the website and on this thread and I don't have a deep technical understanding of how the system works. And I won’t be buying the MPA system for a long time since I already have the plugiator. It will depend on the features it will get in the future.

I guess my so called “vested interest” might be that I would like to see as a company that favors the DIY spirit succeed. There is something appealing about not having to rely on mass produced generic instruments that might lack one specific feature you want. And also having an instrument that you can build on and improve over time. Etc.

Now I will try to forget about the MPA thing for a year or so, it's time-consuming to write forum posts.

[yayajohn]

ok, fair enough
Personally I think the concept is worthy, minus the almost 20yr old plugins
but chop the price to 1/10 what's being asked and I think it stands a chance. If not then the current price puts it in a category that it cannot compete.
Just my opinion, but I'm not a DIY'er either so not really the target audience.
Oh and the Xite-1 is much much more than a synth plugin but you know that

[astroman]

Noone buys an Xite to run 'old Scope plugins', you want it for it's routing and rock-solid audio performance.
Of course the synths and fx are welcome as a huge bonus...
Moog released a Model D ($15) that runs on an iPhone 5s
In fact I could cover most of my sound synthesis in IOS only and while (atm) doing some software spring-cleaning I found the most interesting Scope devices were from either the abandoned of modular category.
But I'd never want to miss the routing and sub-system design that's so easy with Scope.

In a more general context the main thing to significantly improve Scope/Xite sales would be a more workflow oriented approach with easier control beyond the midi protocol.
I admit to benefit a lot from the ongoing support of 'old gear' aka PCI cards. A rare exception on today's market - and I'm grateful forever to all the folks responsible in one or the other way to keep it up.

But knowing the system for decades I also know how difficult a(ny) 'new approach' would be - keeping the great things of the past and turning it into an innovative system as convincing as ever (which has been tried a couple of times iirc).
Funds are limited, so steps are small... that's way it goes

As mentioned I lack to see any (solid) direction in the MPA system, but a lot of empty space 'left to user ideas'.
I'm also in an IOS forum and know how 'smart' the majority of such users is... most cannot even read anymore but need a video instruction, while waiting on the next 'sales'

I have an interface that supports 2 iPads simultanously and this is connected by simple analog stereo busses to both a Scope and a Pro Tools TDM system. It lets me record audio/midi in any of the 3 worlds and feed audio for processing through any of them in live mode. With just plain current technology.

[valis]

What interface is that?

[astroman]

It's an iConnectAudio4+ (by iConnectivity), the only interface with double-host feature.
The 2 USB ports connect to any OSX, Win or IOS system in any mixture (2x IOS, 1 Win 1 OSX, 2 Win, etc).
There's a routing matrix with physical and software ports (up to 10 virtual stereo channels) to connect between systems.
You could have an IOS synth show up in a Logic track, or route a Logic track to Cubase on PC, as you could route a mic input to 2 DAWs at the same time.
This also exists for the 2 Midi DIN ports and a dedicated USB port for external midi hosts (up to 10 iirc).

The routing-mixing control panel isn't the most intuitive design, but one can get along with it.
Unfortunately they don't develope this panel further, but turned to an 'automated' thing that tries to guess what you're after (which is pretty much bs, but the original software is still downloadable).
There's also a full sysex documentation if you feel challenged to write your own control software (probably).

[Mikael-R]

As mentioned I lack to see any (solid) direction in the MPA system, but a lot of empty space 'left to user ideas'.
I'm also in an IOS forum and know how 'smart' the majority of such users is... most cannot even read anymore but need a video instruction, while waiting on the next 'sales'

I think that if they want to have any mainstream success they should focus on distilling their technology to something simple and beutiful that just works without hassle, like the apple philosophy. Most people today have a lack of time and energy after work. What if for example the Moog iPhone app could automatically and wirelessly feed from an MPA box as soon as you open the app. If they can convince people that they will get a sonic edge compared to others that produce only in the box without sacrificing workflow, it would be an easy sell I think.
With that said, not everyone has to strive for mass market success.

[Mikael-R]

Also, there is the mantra: “It’s all software in a box anyway, if it’s not analog you can just as well run it on a computer.“ I have my doubts about the truthfulness of that statement but it is none the less what anyone developing DSP solution has to deal with.

[garyb]

there is no truthfullness to that, but many, if not most don't care.

[valis]

Also, being 'mainstream' as a measure of success isn't as meaningful as that may seem at first glance. Consider the 'mainstream' companies like Gibson that have gobbled up products and companies that we have loved, only to put them out to pasture after distilling what once made those brands and products great to extract what profit was able to be extracted. If memory serves, Creative Labs and many others have done this to companies and products that were quite well made, but not long-lived once under a 'mainstream' flagship brand. Is that really what we need for our personal and professional work?

There's nothing wrong with the Botique approach, and while the days where DSP was a necessity may be behind us, that doesn't mean that Motorola and Analog Devices, not to mention the products that run on these platforms, are dead. It simply means that the 'mainstream' moved on to plugins and is now served by by mobile, tablet and even free desktop products (Cakewalk, Traktion etc). That does NOT mean people will stop buying flagship digital synths, analog classics, well made instruments of any type or even our beloved Scope.

It does however mean that Sonic|Core has a limited and niche market to serve, and to suggest the 'answer' to that is to cast a wider net in an effort to distill this platform into something 'mainstream' is dubious imho. I however would like to see SonicCore have enough additional income to support someone besides Holger

[Mikael-R]

Also, there is the mantra: “It’s all software in a box anyway, if it’s not analog you can just as well run it on a computer.“ I have my doubts about the truthfulness of that statement but it is none the less what anyone developing DSP solution has to deal with.

there is no truthfullness to that, but many, if not most don't care.

The good thing is that MPA can probably bypass that prejudice by marketing things like “hands on approach” or “standalone functionality”.

[Mikael-R]

Ok I will try to see it from a different perspective. Let’s imagine the worst-case scenario: A company copies a technology and lower the price so much that it is impossible for the original company to compete. This new company might not have any real passion or vision except monetary, and might therefore sooner or later degrade or die because it lacks drive and innovation. But not before it has killed of its competitors, leaving us with nothing.
Will porting SC plugins to MPA dry up sales of SC? As far as I know the only people aware of SC is people who have used creamware products in the past or heard about it via word of mouth. An example of the above scenario could be someone who has used ASB synths and now wants it in compact format and has a lot of money. They might skip the Xite-1 and go for the MPA, and as a consequence hurt SC sales. Yet, we are talking really small numbers here and it’s not like those numbers are growing. If there were many cheap MPA products on the market SC might be in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand the MPA boxes could keep some people away from SC since they both to a small degree offer the same things. On the other hand, it could give SC free advertisement. If SC could take advantage of some potential MPA success I think it’s a good thing, and being more integrated with the MPA could be one way of achieving that. But then there are the delicate problem of transfering plugins between MPA systems and SC. It could be difficult if the relationship isn’t great to start with.

I think it’s a problem that people can spend years in the audio gear market and not even know that SC exist. I think some publicity is better than nothing at all. Let’s for example imagine that a thousand guitar players buy an MPA box to use as a guitar pedal, they can load and control plugins via a tablet. One in a thousand might decide to buy an Xite-1, it’s not much but its’s better than nothing. Some UAD developers might port over their plugins with the intent of making their plugins available for users who wants the standalone functionality. Suddenly Xite-1 has some UAD plugins and can begin to compete a little bit with UAD’s rackunits. A large user base is always a good thing for plugin-developers, if MPA and SC can share that userbase I think they would benefit both.

Another perspective that some might have in this forum is that they don’t want “the masses” to be given access to the gear that you have paid a lot of money for and as a consequence diminishing your ability to be competitive. I don’t think that is very relevant here since no one can stop the price drop on the market. For example: no one can tell Behringer what they should charge for their products. An original Moog owner might not be glad that everyone can buy an analog Moog from Behringer now. What I’m trying to say is that there isn’t any point in trying to protect something that’s still going down in price weather you like it or not. For some years ago the Minimax was probably valued higher because it was rarer. Anyone can now get a sound with similar quality to scope by using some hardware and high-quality plugins from UAD/Native (not in such a neat package as scope but still). So, I don’t see any point in keeping the technology a secret or protect it, because then we may end up starving our investment which causes it to halt in its development.

[garyb]

all of these ideas are nice in theory, but not how things actually are.
i would say much more, having some actual behind the scenes knowledge, but i do not want to be negative or insult anyone.

also, there is no desire to keep such tech from "the masses".

original Moog owners don't care about Behringer's clone. their synths are not devalued in any way.

the only real shame is that wannabes and kids are now controlling the market. it's fine. cheap crap doesn't hurt anyone, unless cheap crap is substituted for actual quality. in that case, it's bad for EVERYONE. welcome to the Brave New World.

suffice it to say that these arguments are irrelevant. buy MPA, if you like it and it helps you. it will go the same route as USE|Audio. many will love it, and many will find it to be second-rate garbage. it is up to the user to decide.

SCOPE IS NOT JUST SYNTHS! that's true even if synth users are a major part of the vocal participants. actually, the strongest part of the Scope system is mixing and routing, but there aren't that many who are creative and knowledgeable enough to take advantage of that. Synths are certainly an easier sell.

[Mikael-R]

I’ll should probably stop posting in this thread soon, but here we go

all of these ideas are nice in theory, but not how things actually are.
i would say much more, having some actual behind the scenes knowledge, but i do not want to be negative or insult anyone.

I’ll admit that I don’t know much besides the surface stuff that they have presented. I also have introduced a lot of speculation of what the technology might do in the future, of course I don’t know.

also, there is no desire to keep such tech from "the masses".
original Moog owners don't care about Behringer's clone. their synths are not devalued in any way.

For some users it might be an unconscious thing, I don’t know.

the only real shame is that wannabes and kids are now controlling the market. it's fine. cheap crap doesn't hurt anyone, unless cheap crap is substituted for actual quality. in that case, it's bad for EVERYONE. welcome to the Brave New World.

Maybe MPA can offer cheap quality.

suffice it to say that these arguments are irrelevant. buy MPA, if you like it and it helps you. it will go the same route as USE|Audio. many will love it, and many will find it to be second-rate garbage. it is up to the user to decide.

The MPA technology is so much more versatile than what useAudio offered. Of course, in its present state they just offer a crippled plugiator, not something to get excited about. The exciting thing is the potential for both SC and MPA. Like I said, that is just my impression from looking at it from the outside and I don’t know what will happen.

SCOPE IS NOT JUST SYNTHS! that's true even if synth users are a major part of the vocal participants. actually, the strongest part of the Scope system is mixing and routing, but there aren't that many who are creative and knowledgeable enough to take advantage of that. Synths are certainly an easier sell.

That is why selling synths and effects that works in MPA boxes can be a good stepping stone into Xite-1.
Try to sell the workflow of Scope’s mixing and routing to someone who is used to work in the box and has a bunch of native plugins they like to use. Not very easy as you pointed out.

[Mikael-R]

When I think about it, I do believe that the space-saving and portability factor is Xite-1s biggest strength and selling point. You don’t need a room full of crap in order produce at a very high standard. All you need is any laptop with express-card slot and the unit itself. It’s almost as portable as producing inside the box.
MPA biggest strength and selling point might be its ability to adapt to different circumstances while not being reliant on messy computer operating systems.

[valis]

all of these ideas are nice in theory, but not how things actually are.
i would say much more, having some actual behind the scenes knowledge, but i do not want to be negative or insult anyone.

also, there is no desire to keep such tech from "the masses".

original Moog owners don't care about Behringer's clone. their synths are not devalued in any way.

the only real shame is that wannabes and kids are now controlling the market. it's fine. cheap crap doesn't hurt anyone, unless cheap crap is substituted for actual quality. in that case, it's bad for EVERYONE. welcome to the Brave New World.

suffice it to say that these arguments are irrelevant. buy MPA, if you like it and it helps you. it will go the same route as USE|Audio. many will love it, and many will find it to be second-rate garbage. it is up to the user to decide.

SCOPE IS NOT JUST SYNTHS! that's true even if synth users are a major part of the vocal participants. actually, the strongest part of the Scope system is mixing and routing, but there aren't that many who are creative and knowledgeable enough to take advantage of that. Synths are certainly an easier sell.

I do believe you have everyone's ear, as a steward here for the Scope platform we all understand you have a closer persective than most. I do hope, however, that you didn't interpret my statements about mass marketing as implying Holger has no desire for wider success. I suspect not, but just to be clear my point is that success is a metric that we define ourselves, it's not defined by the 'masses' nor by our publicly visible income stream(s). And of course, anyone would welcome more income if they had the ability to keep up with production without sacrificing their capability to continue to produce results (ie, burn out or sacrifice the principles on which their business is built just for greater earnings in the short term, as the examples I pointed out did).

We of course are agreement on MPA. If this appeals to someone's workflows or even buying impulse, send some income to Frank to and enjoy your exploration of what is on offer. I also agree about Scope's strengths, they go well beyond synths alone.

What I personally enjoy about Scope is its flexiblity. I only have 10 dsps, but that means I can accomplish a few complex internal mix chains ("busses" of items combined) as well as a few reverbs for external devices and the like, and use Scope alongside my other gear in a way none of that other gear really accomplishes on its own. In my case it's basically akin to what very powerful workstation in rack form accomplishes, and more. And in my case, this is why I continue to maintain a machine and cards that have been with me for almost 2 decades, and will I'm sure be with me for far longer. Certainly longer than my last and current laptops, my iPad and so on. And yet I've also had some of my synths for this long as well, they are like my family now. As is this community

[Mikael-R]

It’s going to be interesting to see how many plugins are developed for the DinoPark. It can store 32 plugins on the on-board memory and probably be used for effects as well since the EX model offer audio in. I wonder if some soft-synth developers like u-He will start developing for this. Not very likely since it’s probably a lot of work to port over native plugins but it would be interesting if it got a wider support. Another thing I wonder is how well it will work to spread devices across several units in case it's needed for demanding plugins.

[Bud Weiser]

When you are sooooo interested in MPA DIY hardware solution, why don´t you go over to MPA community forum or wait until it exists.
It´s a fact MPA actually is stuck w/ SCOPE 4 and that´s it.
All other speculation about potential developers for MPA platform is redundant here.
You´re free asking Urs Heckmann if he´s planning developement for MPA,- and since it´s SCOPE platform anyway, you may ask him why he doesn´t develop for SCOPE until now too..

anyway ...

Bud